On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Ahh, I think I see it.  This is an EXEC_BACKEND build farm animal.
>> Theory: After the backend we see had removed the scratch entry and
>> before it had restored it, another backend started up and ran
>> InitPredicateLocks(), which inserted a new scratch entry without
>> interlocking.
> Ouch.  Yes, I think you're probably right.  It needs to skip that if
> IsUnderPostmaster.  Seems like there ought to be an Assert(!found)
> there, too.  And I don't think I entirely like the fact that there's
> no assertions about the found/not found cases below, either.
> Will fix, unless you're already on it?

I was going to send a short patch that would test IsUnderPostmaster,
but I got lost down a rabbit hole trying to figure out how to make my
EXEC_BACKEND builds run on this machine...  Please go ahead.

Thomas Munro

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to